“They are named Flowers because Fruit follows ”: The Foundation of Singlewomen’s Medical Distinctiveness in the Seventeenth Century by Abigail Christine McInnis Submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts At Dalhousie University Halifax, Nova Scotia December 2015 © Copyright by Abigail Christine McInnis, 2015 Table of Contents Abstract………………………………………………………………….……………......iii Chapter One: Introduction……………………………………………….…………....…..1 Chapter Two: Perceptions of Physiology……….………………………….………….…21 Chapter Three: Consent of the Womb……….…………………..……………..……..…48 Chapter Four: Malfunctions in the Matrix………….…………………………….…...…82 Chapter Five: Conclusion.…………………………………………….……………..…117 Bibliography………….………………………………………….…………….………..122 ii Abstract While historians’ discussions of singlewomen in the early modern period have outlined their legal and social distinctiveness, this thesis draws upon medical literature to demonstrate that contemporaries believed singlewomen were medically and physiologically dissimilar from married women. Medical writers argued that singlewomen were perceived as being less healthy due to their lesser innate heat. Singlewomen also lacked the microcosmic social roles of wives and mothers, and because they were thought to be sexually abstinent, these women, along with their humours and fluxes, were deemed unprofitable. In situating an analysis of singlewomen’s health within the early modern discourses of microcosms and profits, this thesis outlines many social and cultural forces that interacted to influence singlewomen’s identities. iii Chapter One: Introduction “Wives are more healthfull then Widowes, or Virgins, because they are refreshed with the mans seed, and ejaculate their own, which being excluded, the cause of the evill is taken away. This is evident from the words of Hippocrates, who adviseth young Maids to marrie, when they are thus troubled…”1 In seventeenth-century England, contemporaries viewed marriage as the ideal state for a woman, both socially and—as the quotation above indicates—medically. This raises the question of whether seventeenth-century contemporaries believed that unmarried women were physiologically distinct from married women. Singlewomen were both legally and socially distinct because they lacked a male authority figure. These women lived outside of the bonds of coverture, which dictated that a husband’s legal identity and authority obscured a wife’s.2 Unlike married women, singlewomen exercised relative legal and social control over their lives. Because of their social and legal differences, singlewomen were also considered to be medically and physically different. This thesis argues that medical writers viewed unmarried women as physiologically dissimilar from married women on the basis of perceived physical differences reflected in a one-sex model of sexual differentiation. This thesis explores the foundation of singlewomen’s medical and physiological differences. The following chapters address the social roots of physiological perceptions that dictated that singlewomen were thought to be less healthy than married women unless sexual activity took place in a socially acceptable manner, because unmarried 1 Nicolass Fonteyn, Womans doctour, or, An exact and distinct explanation of all such diseases as are peculiar to that sex with choise and experimentall remedies against the same. (London, 1652): 4. 2 Krista Kesselring, Tim Stretton, Married Women and the Law: Coverture in England and the Common Law World (Montreal, McGill-Queen’s University Press, 2013) 3. 1 women were prone to more illnesses. This thesis also demonstrate that in cases where a disease was thought to affect both married and unmarried women, the causes and symptoms in singlewomen were often described differently than those in married women. Unmarried women lived outside the parameters of traditional families, and contemporary perceptions of singlewomen’s physiology reflect the implications of their alternative lifestyles Historians have recently brought singlewomen to the fore, filling in a lacuna in the historiography. Amy Froide’s work has proven especially fruitful in helping to uncover the distinctive histories of women who never married. Froide argues that shifting focus from the traditional married norm allows historians to see the large number of unmarried people who sought companionship and economic support outside nuclear households.3 The study of singlewomanhood allows historians to explore lifestyles different from the commonly conceptualized nuclear family. Historians generally divide society into household family structures. Depending on the time period and geographic location under study, this household family can involve mothers, fathers, children, grandparents, aunts, uncles, extended family, and any household employees. In viewing past times through this construction, historians create a focus on the married members of a family, and thus dismiss those who lived outside of traditional structures of family life. Moreover, as Froide and others suggest, looking beyond marriage and the family lets scholars see not just social and economic structures better, but also lets scholars see a greater diversity in individual choices. Viewing women within a heteronormative lens based on a model of “not-yet-wed daughter, married wife, and bereaved widow”, Judith 3 Amy Froide, Never Married: Singlewomen in Early Modern England (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005): 8. 2 Bennett argues distracts historians from seeing other ways of living in the past.4 Much like many modern authors, early modern writers imposed a strict heteronormative lens on singlewomen, assuming that if they were not married, they were either abstaining from sexual activities altogether, or they sought male sexual companions as sexually promiscuous women. This thesis outlines the complex beliefs surrounding unmarried women’s sexuality and sexual practices. There is no mention of lesbian, or lesbian-like relationships in the material under study, nor, unfortunately, do any writers mention how these types of interactions could have impacted women’s health. The early modern writers, do, however, make specific mention of singlewomen as maids, ancient maids, spinsters, and widows in their discussions of unmarried women. This is highly beneficial in the study of unmarried women, though understanding the early modern definition of these terms is often difficult. For example, when does one pass from maidenhood and into the realm of spinsterhood? Certain ambiguities in language make characterizing some of these women difficult. According to Tim Stretton, there were more maids and spinsters in early modern England than married women, which becomes problematic in the representation of women’s history, when “we know less about this group of women than we know about either married women or widows.”5 Part of this lacuna comes from the system through which women are often characterized. Cordelia Beattie notes that in William Shakespeare’s Measure for Measure (c. 1604), the Duke of Vienna inquired if Mariana was a maid, married, or a widow.6 This system of categorization based on marital status left out the never-married singlewoman entirely. A 4 Judith, Bennett, “‘Lesbian-Like’ and the Social History of Lesbianisms,” Journal of the History of Sexuality. Vol. 9, No. 1/2 (2000): 5. 5 Tim Stretton, Women Waging Law in Elizabethan England. (Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, 1998): 103. 6 Beattie, Medieval Single Women, 1. 3 young and unmarried woman was a maid, but once marriage had taken place, she became a wife with all of the legal and social implications of coverture. Upon the death of her husband, she became a widow. This cycle did not apply to the large number of life-long singlewomen early modern England. Froide argues that the number of singlewomen in the seventeenth century rose drastically and they became a recognized social group.7 Maryanne Kowaleski uses historical demography to chart the rising population of singlewomen during the early modern period. According to Kowaleski, the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries saw approximately 8.1% of women remain unmarried. By the seventeenth century, she estimates that the percentage of singlewomen in the population had risen to 14.5%.8 One reason for this growing population was likely the closure of the monasteries in the previous century.9 Unmarried women had once been nuns in monasteries, which was seen as an acceptable social role because of its religious importance. While there were medical disadvantages to celibacy in this context, contemporaries emphasized the spiritual benefit to any suffering on earth.10 After the Reformation there was a shift in thinking and the medical disadvantages of celibacy gained emphasis in medical writings. This shift in thinking, in addition to the growing number of singlewomen created a context to examine the perceived physiological differences between married women and singlewomen within medical literature. 7 Froide, Never Married, 9. 8 Maryanne Kowalski, “Singlewomen in Medieval and Early Modern Europe: The Demographic Perspective” in Judith Bennett, and Amy Froide, (eds) Singlewomen in the European Past, 1250-1800 (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1999): 336-337. Kowaleski provides a chart of estimations of never-married women. I took the average estimations for England over the course of the fifteenth, sixteenth, and seventeenth century. 9 Kowalski, “Singlewomen in Medieval and Early Modern Europe” 61. 10 Ruth